The organization, form and function of intermediate care services and systems in England: results from a national survey

This paper reports the results of a postal survey of intermediate care co-ordinators (ICCs) on the organization and delivery of intermediate care services for older people in England, conducted between November 2003 and May 2004. Questionnaires, which covered a range of issues with a variety of quantitative, ‘tick-box’ and open-ended questions, were returned by 106 respondents, representing just over 35% of primary care trusts (PCTs). We discuss the role of ICCs, the integration of local systems of intermediate care provision, and the form, function and model of delivery of services described by respondents. Using descriptive and statistical analysis of the responses, we highlight in particular the relationship between provision of admission avoidance and supported discharge, the availability of 24-hour care, and the locations in which care is provided, and relate our findings to the emerging evidence base for intermediate care, guidance on implementation from central government, and debate in the literature. Whilst the expansion and integration of intermediate care appear to be continuing apace, much provision seems concentrated in supported discharge services rather than acute admission avoidance, and particularly in residential forms of post-acute intermediate care. Supported discharge services tend to be found in residential settings, while admission avoidance provision tends to be non-residential in nature. Twenty-four hour care in non-residential settings is not available in several responding PCTs. These findings raise questions about the relationship between the implementation of intermediate care and the evidence for and aims of the policy as part of NHS modernization, and the extent to which intermediate care represents a genuinely novel approach to the care and rehabilitation of older people.

Unmet health needs in patients with coronary heart disease: implications and potential for improvement in caring services

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of health care services requires tailoring facilities to fulfil patients' needs. Satisfying patients' healthcare needs, listening to patients' opinions and building a closer provider-user partnership are central to the NHS. Few published studies have discussed cardiovascular patients' health needs, but they are not comprehensive and fail to explore the contribution of outcome to needs assessment. METHOD: A comprehensive self-administered health needs assessment (HNA) questionnaire was developed for concomitant use with generic (Short Form-12 and EuroQOL) and specific (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments on 242 patients admitted to the Acute Cardiac Unit, Nottingham. RESULTS: 38% reported difficulty accessing health facilities, 56% due to transport and 32% required a travelling companion. Mean HRQOL scores were lower in those living alone (P < 0.05) or who reported unsatisfactory accommodation. Dissatisfaction with transport affected patients' ease of access to healthcare facilities (P < 0.001). Younger patients (<65 y) were more likely to be socially isolated (P = 0.01). Women and patients with chronic disease were more likely to be concerned about housework (P < 0.05). Over 65 s (p < 0.05) of higher social classes (p < 0.01) and greater physical needs (p < 0.001) had more social needs, correlating moderately (0.32 < r < 0.63) with all HRQL domains except SAQ-AS. Several HRQL components were highly correlated with the HNA physical score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients wanted more social (suitable accommodation, companionship, social visits) and physical (help aids, access to healthcare services, house work) support. The construct validity and intra-class reliability of the HNA tool were confirmed. Our results indicate a gap between patients' health needs and available services, highlighting potential areas for improvement in the quality of services

A Letter of Consequence: Referral Letters from General Practitioners to Secondary Mental Health Services

The referral letter is a key instrument in moving patients from primary to secondary care services. Consequently, the circumstances in which a referral should be made and its contents have been the subject of clinical guidelines. This article is based on a project that demonstrated that physicians do not adhere to clinical guidelines when referring patients to secondary mental health services. This research supports earlier findings into noncompliance with guidelines by general practitioners (GPs). The authors briefly note possible reasons, which have been the subject of some debate. They also present a content analysis of referral letters to demonstrate the important ways in which they differ from guideline criteria. However, their central argument is that the role of the referral letter in relation to the GP’s repertoire of treatments has not been understood fully. Such understanding implies the need for a reexamination of the support available for GPs.

Whose health, whose care, whose say? Some comments on public involvement in new NHS commissioning arrangements

Recent health policy in England has demanded greater involvement of patients and the public in the commissioning of health and social care services. Public involvement is seen as a means of driving up service quality, reducing health inequalities and achieving value in commissioning decisions. This paper presents a summary and analysis of the forms that public involvement in commissioning are to take, along with empirical analysis from a qualitative study of service-user involvement. It is argued that the diversity of constituencies covered by the notion of ‘public involvement’, and the breadth of aims that public involvement is expected to achieve, require careful disaggregation. Public involvement in commissioning may encompass a variety of interest groups, whose inputs may include population needs assessment, evaluation of service quality, advocacy of the interests of a particular patient group or service, or a combination of all of these. Each of these roles may be legitimate, but there are significant tensions between them. The extent to which the structures for public involvement proposed recognize these possible tensions is arguably limited. Notably, new Local Involvement Networks (LINks), which will feed into commissioning decisions, are set as the arbiters of these different interests, a demanding role which will require considerable skill, tenacity and robustness if it is to be fulfilled effectively.